Posted
by
Hemos
on Monday September 09, 2002 @02:44AM
from the what-will-the-future-look-like dept.

Jamyang writes "In the run-up to the first anniversary of September 11, Taiwan's President has accused China of threatening Taipei with "terrorist" tactics in a speech that will fuel Beijing's current fury: "Communist China has accelerated development of 'unrestricted warfare' similar to terrorist methods," he said. Reuters man in Taipei reckon he's referring to "Unrestricted Warfare" [PDF] by leading PLA strategists - Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui - who famously argued that China should focus on "asymmetric engagement" in the 21st century. In fact, many related secret documents have leaked out of China lately. Taiwan's Defense Ministry is taking the threat of infowar very seriously, as can be seen in their 2002 Defense Whitepaper. If the U.S. gets tied up in a ground war in the Middle East, China's going to be real tempted ...."

What "president Chen of Taiwan" is doing / saying / purposing is an exact mirror of what "president Lee of Taiwan" has done, and failed.

Below is a repost message:

U.S.A: Taiwan's Dim Sum ?

Reposted from http://www.antiwar.com/orig/chu3.html

Taiwan Independence and Free Lunches by Bevin Chu Special to Antiwar.com8/31/99

A standing joke among Sinologists, or China experts, is that the Taiwan independence movement's leaders are ready to fight to the last American G.I. The Taiwan independence motto could be summed up as Give me liberty, or give them death.

Taiwan "independence" has little to do with genuine independence. Taiwan "independence" is characterized by complete and utter dependency, materially and emotionally, on whomever wields the most power. A cliche constantly invoked in Taiwan political debates says it all: "Xi gua kao da bian" (The watermelon tilts toward the big end.)

Materially, the Taiwan "independence" movement is utterly dependent on America. Every evening, reunification proponents warn militant separatists on television debates they are courting disaster, and every evening the separatists argue that America will shield them from the negative consequences of refusing to negotiate in good faith with the Chinese mainland.

So far they have been proven right. Lawrence Eagleburger, Secretary of State to former President George Bush, lamented in the wake of President Bill Clinton's kneejerk dispatch of two carrier battle groups to the Taiwan Straits in 1996: They (Taiwan) have played us like a fiddle.

The Taiwan Relations Act's raison d'etre ended with Chairman Mao's death and his replacement by the man Mao denounced as the Number Two Capitalist Roader, Deng Xiaoping. Whatever purpose it may have once served, it is now merely a blank check signed by Uncle Sam and made out to the Taiwan separatist leadership, to be cashed at their convenience. The amount is yet to be determined, but sooner or later it will be inked in with the blood of American G.I.s.

The east Asian financial crisis was an textbook case of what economists refer to as moral hazard. International Monetary Fund guarantees amounted to an artificial incentive for wealthy investors to indulge in high-risk speculation, knowing the IMF would pull their chestnuts out of the fire if they underestimated how hot it would get.

The Taiwan Relations Act is the political and military analog of IMF bailout guarantees, amounting to an artificial incentive for stealth separatists like Lee Teng-hui to deliberately adopt non-starter negotiating positions and engage in reckless brinksmanship. They know the US Seventh Fleet will come steaming to their rescue if they overplay their hand and Beijing calls their bluff.

The moral hazard of IMF intervention resulted in east Asia bleeding oceans of red ink. The moral hazard of well-intentioned but wrong-headed assurances of American military intervention in the Taiwan Straits will bleed oceans of something far more precious.

American military leaders who may be required to send Americans into combat are painfully aware of the implications of Lee Teng-hui's shenanigans. As Admiral Dennis Blair, America's top military commander in the Pacific testified before Congress, Taiwan was crapping in the punch bowl of US-China relations.

ROC President Lee Teng-hui watched with delight as the US Air Force served as the air wing of the Kosovo Liberation Army. The timing of Lee's "two nations" provocation was hardly coincidental, coming as it did on the heels of NATO's Chinese Embassy bombing fiasco. Lee interpreted the event as his cue to stoop over the punchbowl and take yet another dump.

Fifty-eight thousand Americans ordered to Vietnam came home in bodybags. A black granite monument on the National Mall inscribed with their names serves as a solemn reminder of that tragic waste of American lives.

If our Beltway Bombardiers have failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam, as it appears they have, and pointlessly dispatch young Americans halfway around the world to intervene in a Chinese Civil War that is none of our business, how many will return in bodybags from the Taiwan Straits? After it is all over, win, lose or draw, what would they have died for?

Are American values what the Taiwan separatists hold sacred and expect American fighing men and women to die for? If that were the case, American intervention on the separatists' behalf might be slightly less absurd. But as we shall see, American values are not what the Taiwan independence movement is all about.

Ignore the scripted, feel-good speeches high-powered American PR firms like Cassidy & Associates have carefully coached Lee Teng-hui to spoonfeed our Congress and mainstream media. Ignore especially his 1996 Always in my Heart class reunion speech at Cornell, where he really laid it on with a trowel.

Instead find someone fluent in Chinese or better yet, Japanese, to translate what Lee and other Taiwanese separatists have written for the consumption of separatist militants in Taiwan and neo-fascist fellow travellers in Japan. Americans may be shocked to discover the Taiwanese separatists' bottom line objection to eventual reunification with China has little to do with professed admiration for American concepts of individualism, liberty, republican government, and everything to do with nostalgia for authoritarian Japanese colonial rule.

Lee Teng-hui's book Taiwan's Proposal, published shortly before his "two nations" declaration, is Lee's manifesto for Taiwan's future. It was ghost-written by an anonymous Japanese author from a right wing Japanese perspective. The first edition was in written in Japanese and printed in Japan. Only later was it translated into Chinese and printed in Taiwan. In it Lee praises Japanese culture as being incomparably superior to American culture. Lee boasts publicly that he is more thoroughly steeped in Japanese culture than even the average Japanese.

In case that went by too fast, let me repeat it. A manifesto by the President of the Republic of China, purporting to represent the interests of the people of Taiwan, is actually penned by a neofascist Japanese author in Japan,published in Japan, and only gets translated into Chinese afterwards?

Hello?

During a 1995 interview with visiting Japanese author Ryotaro Shiba, President Lee Teng-hui ordered his cabinet and bodyguards out of his office, and speaking in Japanese to a long lost countryman, gushed that he still considered himself Japanese until a young adult, wept when he heard Japan had surrended to the Allies and was returning Taiwan to China, and that his grief upon hearing Emperor Hirohito had died was more profound than that of Japanese in Japan. The conversation was ostensibly confidential, but Shiba, being a journalist first and Lee's confidant only in Lee's fevered imagination, promptly published their little tete a tete verbatim the minute he got back to Japan, where Japanese neo-fascists applauded it enthusiastically.

Far from being freedom fighters, Taiwanese "independence" leaders fell over each other to collaborate with Japanese colonial administrators for personal advantage.

Lee Teng-hui's father collaborated by serving as a deputy in the colonial Japanese police force, actively oppressing his own people. In return, his family received comfortable housing, quality rations, and educational opportunities. Lee Teng-hui himself attended the Universty of Kyoto, a singular "honor" doled out only to those deemed "politically reliable."

Lee's chief negotiator in cross-Straits negotiations with Beijing is crony capitalist Koo Chen-fu. An historian at Taiwan's Academia Sineca recently exposed Koo and the Koo family business empire as WWII era profiteers engaged in the selling of Taiwanese women into sexual slavery.

Younger Taiwan independence leaders born too late to have been collaborators routinely offer elaborate rationalizations for WWII era Japanese war crimes on local talk shows.

When China was refused an apology in writing from Japanese Prime Minister Obuchi for WWII war crimes, which included years of gang rape of Taiwanese comfort women and Joseph Mengele-style Unit 731 "medical experiments" performed on American POWs in Manchuria, Lee Teng-hui huffily proclaimed that "Japan has apologized enough. Any further apologizing will only harm Japan's dignity!"

Just before Lee threw his "two nations" gauntlet at Beijing's feet, he told Taiwan's media he detected early storm clouds of "kamikaze" (divine wind) gathering over the island of Taiwan. The media was baffled by his cryptic remark, but his intention soon became clear. Time is running out for Lee, just as it ran out for Japan's kamikaze squadrons approaching V-J Day. Lee is hoping his "two nations" proclamation will provoke war. As Dr. Alex Kao, an expert on Chinese military strategy sees it, Lee is gambling that the mainland will launch a premature war now which, 15 years from now, Taiwan would have no chance of winning.

Emotionally, the Taiwan "independence elite" is dependent on their former colonial master, Japan, into whose arms they will fling themselves if their divorce from China becomes a reality. Taiwan "independence" is merely a way station en route to their final destination, Tokyo. Even their proposed "Republic of Taiwan" flag is a fascimile of the Japanese Emperor's "Chrysanthemum Flag." Taiwan separatists would be jubilant if upon achieving "independence" they are promptly re-colonized by Japan.

Taiwan independence is a movement which if genuinely understood would evoke scant sympathy from Americans, certainly not from American POWs who survived the Bataan Death March, and the Taiwan independence leaders know it. So instead they recite the catechism they know patriotic Americans want to hear: Freedom, democracy, anti-communism.

In a sense we shouldn't blame the Taiwan "independence" parasites, who are really no different from sundry homegrown parasites. The parasites know perfectly well they're getting a free lunch at American taxpayers' expense, but as long as their generous Uncle Sammy insists on picking up the tab, they'd be crazy to pass up a free meal.

A few million in strategically distributed political contributions by the immensely wealthy Taiwan Lobby, and presto, highly-trained military personnel and trillions in advanced weaponry belonging to the World's Only Remaining Superpower are placed at their disposal. Americans who enlisted in our armed forces on the understanding their duty was to defend American territory from foreign invaders find themselves job-shopped as mercenaries to would-be founders of a would-be "Republic of Taiwan." The Taiwan tail winds up wagging the American dog. The Taiwan mouse roars, and the proud American eaglecrosses the Pacific to do the mouse's bidding.

A pretty shrewd bargain for the Taiwan "independence" movement. But what kind of a deal is it for Americans? We owe it to ourselves to consider long and hard whether Taiwan independence is something American taxpayers want to pay for with our sweat and American fighting men and women want to pay for with their blood.

What will happen to 22 million ordinary Taiwanese if America repeals the Taiwan Relations Act and informs the obdurate separatist Lee Teng-hui "You want independence? Lots of luck. You're on your own."

The answer is: Not a damned thing.

Instead the Taiwan independence movement's Japanophile elite will be forced to listen, for a change, to the 80% majority of Taiwan people who oppose Taiwan independence and are perfectly content with defacto autonomy. If they don't, the people will elect a more rational president, one who will drive a hard bargain and negotiate a high degree of regional autonomy under a "One Country, Two Systems" formula. Later, as the mainland liberalizes to a degree deemed satisfactory by Taiwan, the two sides will reunify peacefully along the lines of East and West Germany.

Both America and China will win. Heavily armed Taiwan will get an even better deal than Hongkong, which to the chagrin of China-haters has remained utterly unmolested since its restoration to China, despite being completely unarmed.

Only the Taiwanese separatist fanatics will lose. Without America's credit card on the dinner table they will have to stare at the prices on the menu before ordering. Without American carte blanche, Lee Teng-hui and his Taiwan "independence" elite will have to ask themselves whether their dream of becoming a satellite of Japan is worth risking their own miserable hides, rather than the lives of American servicemen and women.

But, as the libertarian battle cry coined by the late, great libertarian science fiction master Robert Heinlein goes, "Tanstaafl!" or "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!"

The author is an American architect of Chinese descent registered to practice in Texas. Currently living and working in Taiwan, Chu is the son of a retired high-ranking diplomat with the ROC government.

...and those evil linux 'hackers' in China will be prosecuted, then a joint-venture will pop up between China and the US to prosecute everything that has the word 'hacking' into it - expecially the linux kernel.

Damn, look at those linux guys, they have hacking also in the core of their operating system! thank god Palladium will save us.

The agreement we have with Taiwan doesn't state we will go to war with them, just that we will supply them with the military equipment (supposing they can pay for it) they will need to fight the war themselves.

We are under no obligation to go to war with China should they take action against Taiwan. Taiwan is quite capable of defending themselves. In fact Taiwan has a larger military than most super powers for this very reason. If you make the argument that China is larger with a superior military force, I will simply remind you of Vietnam and our failed attempts there.

In the last 100 years no country has successfully invaded another. The world just doesn't take to kindly to that. There is a few possible exceptions (china and tibet), but putting them in context will still lead you to the same conclusion. The country on defense has a significantly high advantage. This advantage is why we didn't finish Saddam Hussein in the 90's.

In the last 100 years no country has successfully invaded another. The world just doesn't take to kindly to that. There is a few possible exceptions (china and tibet),

I'm glad you remembered Tibet (it is afterall China we are talking about). If one means invasions sucessfully repulsed, there were not a lot of those. However, in a lot of places one nation was able to hold on to another from a few years (name any of the countries invaded by the Germans in WW2) to about 50 years for the DDR and even more for the countries comprising Soviet Russia. For example, some of the Central Asian countries were not associated with Russia until about 80 years ago.

In any case the PRC sees the ROC as part of China. They do not perceive it as another country, just a last bastion of power held by a regime chased out of the rest of the country. If they start to accept it as a separate country then there is a chance for long term peace.

To be serious Taiwan and China enjoy a very profitable business partnership and there are many in China who know this. However there are still a few hawks around (especially in the military) who perceive otherwise. Let us wait for the next People's Congress to see who gets in.

The country on defense has a significantly high advantage. This advantage is why we didn't finish Saddam Hussein in the 90's.

I'm game with the rest of what you have to say, but I think we pretty much ruled the landscape in Iraq before we pulled out. Not to say it wouldn't have cost lives to march up to Saddam's house and knock on the door, but the opportunity was certainly there. Heck, their soldiers were giving up left and right, by the thousands. We didn't even have anywhere to put all the of prisoners.

The reason we didn't finish the job was because someone got cold feet. This wasn't the same as the island hopping and Japanese mainland of WWII or Vietnam.

Germany invaded major countries like Poland and France, and thoroughly occupied them in addition to consuming various smaller countries as, basically, stepping stones. Care? Well, the Czechs know how much the rest of Western Europe really cared, until the UK, Switzerland and Spain were basically all that weren't assimilated by Italy or Germany.

The US invaded Grenada -- nobody lifted a finger. The US invaded Panama and implemented some regime change -- again, nobody interfered. The USSR and Cuba funded and trained Marxist revolutionaries all over Latin America and Africa, and nobody but the US really gave a damn.

How much outside intervention have we seen in Jammu and Kashmir? None.

How much outside intervention have we seen when the Turks invade Iraq? Basically none.

If you got the power, or you're not threatening THEM immediately, most of the world won't care. Like Chamberlain, they'll happily sign over a third party's land to somebody else if it doesn't hurt their short-term interests.

Terrorism! That's the new blanket statement we can use for everything it seems. It used to be "those commies" who were somehow able to corrupt and affect everything that went bad. Missle Defense System not working? Commies! The price of wheat high? Commies!

Somehow we've gotten into the same trap again, things that have been happening for months, if not years, are now blamed on "terrorist activity." I think every skirmish in the past 12 months have all been blamed on terrorism to differing plausibility: Afghanistan/Taliban, Israel/Palestine, Philippines/Abu Sayyaf, N. & S. Korea, and now Taiwan/China. I mean, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been going on for over 50 years! Is it just a new catchphrase or is it a realisation of the tactics used by one side or the other? And by the US gov't declaring war on terror, it means that the US will have an obligation to help all of these countries in their "War Of Terror".

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Basically, if you're not a government doing it to your own people or you don't have the backing of the (somewhat fuzzy) guidelines of 'international law', it's terrorism. In other words, it's a pretty broad definition.

As an anarchist (minimal government model) I believe that there should be no lawful use of force, and that one of the main priorities of government would be to act in force proportionally against those people breaking that law... but then most of my politics are a thought experiment, so forget I even mentioned it:)

Terrorism! That's the new blanket statement we can use for everything it seems.

I couldn't believe it the other day when I hired a video and the first five minutes was about the evils of pirating, and it ended by saying that the money from pirate videos supports drug smugglers and terrorists. I don't know why they don't just go the whole hog and add padeophiles to the list. And the French.

Drug dealers don't need to make money on the side from pirating videos. For gods sake, they're in the most lucrative buisness on the planet, and any time the US increases it's intercepts they just increase outgoing shipments. Get together all the money made by movie pirates and it would just be a tiny drop in the bucket when it comes to drugs.

You won't see nearly this much money in piracy untill hardware DRM comes in. Then street dealers will sell crack, coke, weed, and video cards with the DRM disabled or black market TV out jacks wired in.

Before the modern Zionist movement, "Israel" was nothing more then a few scattered, peaceful, Jewish communities in a large Arab one. The idea that "Israel and Palestine" have been fighting for thousands of years is ridiculous. The Jews have never fought with Islamic Arabs before, and only once before fought with the "Philistines" (for which the region was named 'Palestine' by the Romans)

In fact, many related secret documents have leaked out of China lately.

Yea, like how they make Swingline 747 staplers that are *just as good* and the ones they used to make in New York. And documents on just *how* much (or little) they're paying people at the Logitech mouse making plant to make those little cordless mice.

Personally I want to find out about their documents on how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop. I hear they done extensive research into this phenomenon.

Why is it that non-Americans hate the US so much, yet it is always the United States cleaning up everyone else's spilled milk, as so to speak?

I think perhaps you have it backwards - could it be that non-Americans hate the US so much because the United States is always cleaning up spilled milk?

For example, according to an Ipsos-Reid poll [globeandmail.com] last week, 69 per cent of Canadians said the U.S. shares some of the responsibility for the attacks, while 15 per cent said all of the responsibility sits on American shoulders.

If we Canadians feel that way, how does the rest of the world feel? You are bound to get stung when you stick your hand in the hornets' nest looking for honey.

For example, according to an Ipsos-Reid poll [globeandmail.com] last week, 69 per cent of Canadians said the U.S. shares some of the responsibility for the attacks, while 15 per cent said all of the responsibility sits on American shoulders.
If we Canadians feel that way, how does the rest of the world feel? You are bound to get stung when you stick your hand in the hornets' nest looking for honey.

Dumping on the US is the national sport of Canada, behind ice hockey, and has been for a long time. Nothing new or surprising about those numbers, and I daresay they have much less to do with deep analysis of international affairs and a lot more to do with the usual Canadian complexes vis a vis the US.
Nothing new to see here, move along.

You misunderstand - if you read the article, you'd see that those 15% believe that US foreign policy led to the attacks. Rather, had US foreign policy been handled differently, the attacks would have never happened. That's not to defend those 15%, I personally believe that it takes two to tango, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion. My point isn't to defend those 15%, or 69%, for that matter. It's just to say that if a closely allied country can find blame in the US, how do people in other countries feel?

Why is it that non-Americans hate the US so much, yet it is always the United States cleaning up everyone else's spilled milk, as so to speak?

Because (rightly or wrongly), most non-Americans think that in the last 50 years the US has done more to make the world a worse place to live than any other single country. (Hint: most non-Americans live in Asia, Africa or South America.)

1) Somebody will always hate somebody else. And if that somebody else is more known than usually then those that hate will also be more known. Case in point South America and Spain. Not that many South American's are that crazy about Spain. (Obvious reasons, but nobody hears about it).

2) Not everybody hates the US. They were talking about this in CNN Europe Edition. And many came to the conclusion that Europeans do not hate American's per say. They hate the administration and George Bush.

3) Some people who hate the US also hate the West. There are many Islamists (People who believe Islamism is the true way). And these folks, do not like Democracy or anything like that. They only believe in Islamism and hence they hate the West as much as they the US.

4) Humans like bitch. I know that I bitch about the US, but guess what I REALLY bitch about Germany (Schroeder the biggest wahoo, bonehead, idiot, makes George Bush look intelligent, ever elected), France, Canada and all the other countries. But people only remember my bitching of the US.

If I dislike America the Capitalist it'd because of it's success. It's ironic that the majority of Americans I have met are some of the friendliest and generous people I have met but when I walk through my town it makes me sad that everywhere I see Corporate America mocking me with it's ownership of my environment. Within 5 miles of my house there are 4McDonalds, 2 Wal-Marts, 2 Starbucks and 1 GAP. As en experiment I just went and turned on my TV. Of the seven channels two of them are shwoing American programmes (Happy Days & something with Tia Carrera as Indiana Jones).

Of course, much of it doesn't start out as unwanted, I like Happy Days but as time goes by this cultural expansionism gets a bit much. Suddenly there are no shops but American shops. All your canned drinks say "made by the Coke Company" and there's nothing but Saved By The Bell or WWF on TV.

America can seem like a guest who brought round a six pack and a pizza but doesn't know when to leave.

Just ask Osama. The Americans come to help stabilise the region but then decide to maintain a military presence that goes far beyond the initial mandate. Now, I will admit, that this presence is probably to *my* benefit, but for some Muslims it's offensive (like Conservative Islam is to me).

I'm not suggesting that any of this makes it okay to spill American blood. Far from it. But that's what it's like living under American influence.

It's no wonder the people try to protect their culture from outside influence. They want dominion over their own affairs.

Perceived common enemies are the stock in trade for the human race be it burglars, burgers or Burghers. There's money/power to be made in "solutions" to all of these.

"All your canned drinks say "made by the Coke Company" and there's nothing but Saved By The Bell or WWF on TV. "

A little about me-

I live in New York State, with a population of 18 million plus, and more specifically in Rochester, with the metro area having around 900,000 people....Not exactly a backwater, and I think i'm a fairly typical citizen for my age and school (21, RIT)

So, let's see...Looking around my room at the moment- Various drinks, with a box of Moutain Dew being the sole Pepsi/Coke product, dwarfed by a couple huge jugs of orange juice and some liter bottles of water, of all things:)

Elsewhere- Stacks of burned anime CDs and tapes outnumbering anything else I have by at least 5:1, not to mention that I can't remember the last time I watched Saved by the Bell(hasn't even been broadcast on any major stations here for at least 4 or 5 years, to my knowledge), or stayed on any station showing WWF for more than a second or two.

"As en experiment I just went and turned on my TV. Of the seven channels two of them are shwoing American programmes (Happy Days & something with Tia Carrera as Indiana Jones)."

This just makes you sound like you're looking for something to complain about....I could whine about the Japanese, Spanish, ASL(sign language), or UK stations I have in the lineup here, but I actually like watching programming not of my native country.

And no offense to you personally, but really, if Europeans and others are equating overseas reruns of old TV programming like fscking Happy Days and such to trying to force our culture down your collective throats....Something's very wrong:P

Anyway, the point of this all is- Remember that not all Americans (and really very few, relatively) are intent on cultural vandalism and exporting "shitty sitcoms"....Generalization is bad, mmkay?

Most of us love experiencing cultures other than our own, despite what big buisness may have you believe.

No, if you read the conversation the poster wanted to know where anti-American feeling comes from and, I believe, that my answer was addressing that question from my honest perspective.

You'll notice that I suggested that much of it came from America the Capitalist, not the people.

One could probably write a whole book on the subject so I'm sorry if my post didn't get across all the subtleties.

The symbol of the flag is very strong, marking one's territory. The international success of US retail business (bourne probably because of the vastness of the US continent and the necessity to think big) means we have many such flags and each one of them says 'we own you'. No other country has such a multitude of these symbols planted in our soil.

You'd think there would be such feeling around China and Taiwan. After all, a huge percentage of our household goods and electronics items are made in these places which adversely affects our balance of trade but our relations with China are generally ignored by most people. The only high profile Asiatic business I can think of round these parts is a Mitsubishi Car Dealer.

Personally I'm not predjudice either way because, like you say, it is relatively few people who wield the actual power. It's institutions that become problematic not the people running them. I believe the institutions will eventually crumble, like all that have gone before them. Perpetual Economic Growth as a goal is surely doomed to failure. The capitalists think that the problems will solve themselves once someone thinks of a way to make money out of solving them. Surely that can't be right, can it?

As for TV, well it's an Australian that started the channel that shows WWF all day Saturday and if ever a tv show carried the wrong message about Americans it is WWF. I mean, it's a TV show that's targetted at kids in which the protagonists fight because one of them drugged the other one's daughter and kidnapped her and married her in Las Vegas as some sort of revenge on the other to which the conclusion was for one to baseball bat the other unconcious while people cheered on. With commentary.

First of all, it's mostly 'hate the Amercian government'. And secondly:-Kyoto-re-evaluation of the use of nukes (it's still affecting the huge cancerrate in Hiroshima and Nagasaki! After 50 years!)-the fact that the PATRIOT act has turned the US into a police state (and no-one seems to notice...)-known corrupt politicians (Senator Disney, anyone?)-the fact that every single deplyment of US troops has been in the US' best interest, but the US still tries to make us believe they do it 'for the good of the world'...if that's so, why didn't you go to Angola or try to end the South Afrikan Apartheid regime? People hate hypocrasy.-Echelon (the whole using a national spying apparatus for corperate gain).-the fact that your government is BOUGHT! by corperations and other forms of money.-the fact that after years of meddling in international affairs for your own gain, you don't stop whining after you finaly got hit back (only 3000 casualies...that's not a lot; ask the Angolans) and seem intent to drag the rest of the world into a destructive path of violence and the curtailment of privacy and other freedoms. -loads more

And still Americans seem genuinely surprised anyone would have anything against them...

Just rest assured that most people just hate the government, not the average American.

This may be a suprise to you, but the American public has almost NO direct control over things like the use of nukes or the choice of US troop deployments...Whether you believe it or not, the vast majority of our local/state/federal government leaders are there because the PEOPLE wanted them to be, and as such, the elected officals directly make the decisions, not the common rabble.

It's not the best system right now, but it works, and the country hasn't dissolved into anarchy quite yet:):P.

We didn't get to be a world superpower by whining about how clueless everyone with more influence than us was, ya know?

Did you ever see two brothers fighting, and try to break it up? What happens? They turn on you!

When America (read: The Religious Right^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H US Gov't.) sticks its nose into confilcts we have no business in, the inevitable result is, at the least, indignation at having someone else tell you what to do.

Somewhere along the way, the Powers That Be here in the states, along with the controlling majority (read: the richest 1%), decided that what is good for America is good for everybody.

None of them seem to realize that they don't even know what is good for the U.S., nor do they consider what we'd think about it if say, China tried to tell us how to run our country.

That said, the real majority of the people in the US think much like those outside do: The U.S. has no business and no right trying to be Big Brother. We've got enough damn problems of our own.

Now that the US has decided to wage a war against terrorism many other countries have decided to crack down own their own internal problem populations by painting them with the terrorist brush.

Russia did it with chechnians, China did with the minority muslim population in the west. In the case of Israel it has used the post 9-11 US position to crack down much harder on the palestenians to the point of putting eight hundred thousand people under curfew and starving the population into submission.

Before 9-11 all of these actions would have been objectionable to the US govt and the public at large but post 9-11 nobody has raised an eyebrow.

Even in the US anybody who disagrees with the govt gets tagged with the terrorist label. The environmentalists, the "anti globalists", hackers, music swappers, open source developers etc.

It should not surprise anybody to see taiwan jumping on board this bandwagon.

My suspicion is that the term will dilute itself just like the word nazi did after it got overused so much. Feminazi, green nazi, surf nazi, soup nazi etc. When you start labeling everybody with the same tag pretty soon the label encompasses so many people it loses it's potency.

I don't think he implied that the government need do the labeling. Private groups are jumping on the bandwagon as well. Ask the IFPI [ifpi.org].

"Connections between organized South American pirates and Middle Eastern terrorists groups: discs carrying extremist propaganda have been found in Argentina, Mauritius, Pakistan and Paraguay that come from the same source as much of the illegally-produced music in these regions. Other extremist or terrorist groups, for example in Northern Ireland, are partly funded by music piracy."

really feel like the USians started the whole trend when GW & gang started talking about evil. GW would like to submit that the terrorists are pure incarnations of evil on Earth, and the USA is 100% righteous.

This is false, of course. And other nations have it worse than us anyway. I don't know about their body count, but terrorism on the part of the Chechnyans and the Palestinians certainly affect the daily lives of Israelis and Russians much more than Americans are effected by Al Qaeda. So, if Al Qaeda is pure evil, then surely the Chechnyans and the Palestinians are worse, right?

It's all political posturing, and it's all bullshit. We must attack Al Qaeda in order to preserve our national security. It has nothing to do with good vs. evil. Good vs. evil is a psuedo-religious sham. Any way, now that unconventional warfare has been equated with evil incarnate, Taiwan would be stupid not to invoke the name of terrorism when dealing with China. It's like calling GW on the phone and saying, "We understand if you're too chicken to deal help us out." Personally, I'm all for it. Just because I like Taiwan, and hope that the US defends its allies.

"So, if Al Qaeda is pure evil, then surely the Chechnyans and the Palestinians are worse, right?"

There is a profound difference. The chechens and the palestenians are occupied people. They are fighting to reclaim their independence from an opressive and violent occupation of their lands. Neither one of them enjoy the full spate of human rights that their occupiers or the rest of the free world enjoy.

I am sure you don't need me to reel off starvation, torture, assasinations, no right to travel, curfews, mass arrests, no access to lawyers and plain old murders that are visited on those unfortunate people.

When al Quadia attacked us we were not occupying anybody, we were not denying anybody human rights, not torturing people, not preventing people from getting medical attention etc.

Of course we now seem to be sliding in that direction but that's another story altogether.

It's one think to attack unprovoked it's another to fight to throw off your enslavers. You remember this phrase "give me freedom or give me death"? The same thing.

Alright, I understand lots of/.ers respond without readin the article. Please, however, at least finish reading the post you're responding to. I think I said: It's all political posturing, and it's all bullshit.

I don't *care* if there's a profound difference in the motivations of Al Qaeda and the Palestinians. I'm just trying to talk about the political posturing done by the US, Russia, Israel, and now Taiwan. This political posturing is far, far removed from reality. That was my point. Please read again.

Anyway, a lot of anti-embargoe types would suggest that we *were* denying people human rights, and we were preventing people from getting medical attention before the 9/11 attacks. But it's hard to argue that that had much to do with Al Qaeda's motivation.

"Anyway, a lot of anti-embargoe types would suggest that we *were* denying people human rights, and we were preventing people from getting medical attention before the 9/11 attacks. But it's hard to argue that that had much to do with Al Qaeda's motivation."

Ironic that you choose this example. The embargoes were being used in iraq to starve that population into submission (by and large we did manage to starve several hundred thousand to death). Despite this they did not attack us. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Now of course having failed to actually get bin laden we will kill some more iraquis.

Ironic that you choose this example. The embargoes were being used in iraq to starve that population into submission (by and large we did manage to starve several hundred thousand to death). Despite this they did not attack us. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I'm sorry, you're not making any sense. That was not an example. It had nothing to do with my point at all. It was a sidebar. And I said the same thing about it that you did. I do not believe that we actually disagree. I believe that you have misread all of my posts. I don't think they were complicated, either.

It's all political posturing, and it's all bullshit. We must attack Al Qaeda in order to preserve our national security. It has nothing to do with good vs. evil. Good vs. evil is a psuedo-religious sham.

But they could say the same thing: That US pop culture is ruining their way of life, and they must fight against us to stop the seepage.

There has to be some moral absolutes in order to make an agreeable code of behavior.

The "cultural leak" argument fails on the "Golden Rule". If their culture leaks, they would not want us to bomb them for that reason alone. Thus, they should not want the same thing if they want *semmetry* (My damned spelling checker won't find that one for me. Viva fonetic languages) AKA "fairness".

Thus, "good and evil" are something beyond just a religious idea. It is about agreeing to a code of behavior and punishing those who deviate in proportion to the deviation. The Golden Rule (due unto others as....) is a nice start.

Taiwan isn't hopping on the bandwagon here, as China truly does use terrorist tactics. China has threatened Taiwan with missiles, and doesn't even acknowledge the legitimacy of Taiwan's government.

Taiwan is not officially a state, as it does not clearly have the capacity to enter into relationships with other states, as many other countries view Taiwan as part of the ROC, not as an independant state. Taiwan cannot appeal to the United Nations, because it cannot join the United Nations, due to the fact that membership can be vetoed by any member of the security council, of which China is a member.

This has been a long-standing problem, as Taiwan has 20+ million people, who've formed a self-governing body and want to be their own country, but have an 800-lb gorilla preventing them from doing so. Unfortunately this problem has been worsened in recent years as countries such as the United States have made clear that they don't care about China's oppression of Taiwan by ignorning the issue, and even granting China Most Favored Nation status, as Americans care more about cheap shoes than they do about the oppression of a country, and about gross human rights violations.

So you are saying that Israel was overreacting to the near daily suicide bombers? How else were they supposed to solve that problem?

I think neither side is in the right on this issue. The Israekies have behaved miserably and so have the Palistinians. For each attack by the other side, level of violence is escalated. Frankly I think we in the U.S. are at the root of the problem since we helped draw in Israel & erase Palestine at the end of WWII.

Where? When? The closest you can come to that is a few speeches by illinformed senators. The DMCA does not have a terrorist clause.

I'm from Wisconin, the home of McCarthyism, all you need is a small group of illinformed congress people and the right public sentiment to turn the whole US population against a small group. In the late 40s & early 50s and can happen any time society is under stress

Public officals have labeled anti-globalist and environmentalist protestors as being terrorists, and the anti-war protesters during the late 60's were treated the same. Some of this may be deservied because of the methods used by the extreamests if the above groups.

Thinking that the US is at the root of the problems in Israel is absurd (the US is certainly not innocent in this of course). The British actually started the whole thing with the Balfour declaration [un.org] back in 1917. The UN partitioning [un.org] did not erase Palestine, in fact it was much larger than it is today. Palestine never even had an indepedent state prior to this. The British were in control of the territory prior to this. The Ottoman empire in control prior to that. The whole thing is a f'ing mess [un.org], had everyone just agreed to the partitioning everything would be fine, but neither side will let the other have anything.

If China does decide to take up electronic warfare, how will the Taiwanese prove that it indeed originated in China, and not somewhere else? After all, I highly doubt that China would hit Taiwanese systems without taking a few measures to cover their tracks.

Would just a huge rise in the frequency with which Taiwanese systems are attacked be enough for them to scream bloody murder and ask for the Americans to come to their defence?

And on a side note, how would Washington respond to these kind of attacks on Taiwan? If Taiwan was physically invaded, or was bombed / targeted by missiles, America would obviously move to provide Taiwan with direct military aid. But what would be considered an apropriate response to an attack that neither physically damages Taiwan (in the "buldings blown up and civilians killed sense), nor is obviously of Chinese origin...
What does/. think of that?

Am I the only one that's getting tired of every world leader referring to the activity of their rivals as being "terrorism"? It reminds me of how, during the Cold War, every problem a nation faced was either blamed on "communist subversion" or "imperialist aggression."
Computer viruses as terrorism? Well, maybe if they're targeted to drop planes from the sky, cause nuclear power plant malfunctions, etc -- but everyday preparation for infowar is not terrorism.
Besides, terrorism is almost always the weapon of the weak (excluding "terror" against one's own population). Strong countries find lobbing a few missiles to be much more effective. There is real danger of full-scale conventional war if Taiwan declares independence from China, and I suspect that computer viruses will be the last of their concerns.

It really isnt used more now than it was before. Before 9/11/01 there was news everyday about terrorism in South America, Israel etc....

It's just noticed now rather than ignored. It's been taken to our doorstep rather than viewed at a distance. Now you know how people in other countries feel 24/7 only for them it's probably magnified by several orders of magnitude.

I would be suprised if it was not referred to as terrorism. Every state that was persuing its own form of military expansionism throughout recent history has referred to any group or individual that opposes them as "terrorists". THe definition of terrorism is "calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature".It was used by the Nazis, the Japanese and even the good old English when refering to the US coloial uprisings. Being from somewhere else in the world it is painfully obvious that the US has no interest in peace in the middle east but rather to control the oil. A simple concept but despite its terrible implications, one that is easily ignored by most people, including myself.The counterinsurgency employed by the US in south america was just what they refer to by other countries as terrorism. Just feel lucky you live in the US and not anywhere else.

I'm not too well-versed on such things, but what would happen if the U.S. was attacked, or "hacked", on a massive scale? (By massive I mean a concentrated, organized effort where the objective was to shut down our information infrastructure.)

I hate to bring up cheesy movies as reference points, but do any of you remember the movie Hackers? In the end sequence, they try to disable a mainframe ("the Gibson"-- a nod to the SF author of the same name) by attacking it from several fronts. It worked. Imagine if the U.S. was the Gibson... could China attack us "electronically" in such a way that could, in some ways, have the same result as an EMP? Something like that?

You are quite wrong. There are many ways to generate an artificial EMP pulse. No nukes needed.

Read here for more details.

http://www.milnet.com/milnet/e-bomb.htm

The original theory for a non-nuclear EMP producing device, thought up in 1927 by Dr. Arthur Compton to study atomic particles, makes use of injection of plasma into low electron count elements. By the mid 1980s, scientists had found ways to build a high energy device that, without resorting to a nuclear blast, could emit a huge EMP. Test drops of devices using B-52s and Cruise Missile airframes demonstrated the feasibility of the technology. A one time explosive device provides kinetic energy required to rapidly build an electromagnetic field through electromagnetic induction rather than through the nuclear chemistry found in a nuclear explosion. A second, low cost technology uses a moving short in a tube fed by a charging system. This technology, known as FCG - Flux Compression Generator, turns out to require far less cash to develop and manufacture.

could China attack us "electronically" in such a way that could, in some ways, have the same result as an EMP? Something like that?

Actually, there is more to this story than you may think.

Last summer in the midst of the Nimda, Code Red and Sir Cam outbreaks, for the first time the concept of the internet "going down" was brought to the forefront. Traffic load on certain segments of the internet was so immense due to these self-replicated and scanning virii that certain routers already were being knocked out of commision. And these virii weren't even created with the specific intent of, "Generate as much traffic as possible."

"The Internet" being knocked virtually out of commision is actually a possiblity, if a few major backbones are taken out. The worst part? We, in all honesty, have no clue how to "reboot" the Internet if enough of it went down.

The objective of information warfare is to ensure the Security of Communication, Information and Network of the National Defense. Under the guideline of Defense first, Swift Responses & Preemption, the MND has adopted the strategy of Active Surveillance & Reconnaissance, and Protection to establish a security protection capability of communication and information, which stresses Early Warning and Quick Response so as to maintain superiority in communication and information. Furthermore, in order to cope with cybervirus warfare, the MND has established an information warfare task force in concert with key technology development programs of communication and information security and Net Safety Program of the CSIST so as to create relevant technologies regarding cybervirus control and prevention.@

I fail to see the news in this though. Preparation for the much hyped cyberwars is probably in every countries defense tasklist.

The Bush administration has shown a lot of interest in passing laws that restrict rights. The evidence that Al-Queda has any cyberwar capabilities beyond that of a pimple-faced script-kiddie is weak, but stories still pop up about the threat that they entail and the measures that are going to have to be taken to combat it.

I wouldn't be suprised if a story like this, from a very dependent ally, was encouraged by the powers that be.

Oh yeah, remember; if you or anyone you know smoked a joint since 9/11, you're supporting terrorisim.

i originally posted the comment below on april 25th, and am cutting and pasting it verbatim... [slashdot.org] it was attached to the slashdot story "CIA Warns China Might Be Planning Cyber Attack" [slashdot.org] if you go to the website i mentioned below right now today, you get nothing but a lonely gif, a copyright notice, and a webmaster's address... the veritable calm before the storm? again, i am not much a conspiracy theorist, but what is with the sept. 2002 date i originally mentioned? i wish i had a cache of that page! and honestly, i don't know if this site or this organization is in taiwan, the us, or china, or sealand;-P someone less lazy than me run a trace route!;-)

Remember then Chinese hacker push in early May of last year? It was to coincide with May Day and in protest over the whole U.S. Spy Plane Hainan Island debacle the month before that.

Some MS boxen got "f**k USA government f**k poizonbox" pasted all over their IIS roots. Not much beyond that, and I think some American hackers returned the favor. A little miniature patriotic hacker war.

Out of curiosity, I kept up to date on Chinese hacking at a site whose address is www.cnhonker.com (visit at your own risk, and don't hit the Back button;-P ). I guess honker is hacker in Chinese. It was a toolbox of scripts and methodologies.

But very recently, in March, the site was closed by someone called "lion". I had a Chinese coworker of mine visit the site, and she translated the brief explanation for the site's closing as "After long thinking, we have no choice but close it. Please don't write to us asking why, give us a little time. We'll be back. September 2002, we'll see you again"

I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, but when it comes to autocratic governments, my instincts change... any bets on whether or not the Chinese Government has coopted some of their talented hackers for a patriotic cause?

Personally, I am getting tired of hearing about this "cyber-terrorism". You know it's nonsense. I know it's nonsense.It's simply another idiocy spewed by the cabal ruling the US, another area where they will spread violence and prohibitions, another area where humongous amounts of money will be spent.

Please, let's just drop this. Let's not make it news when somebody Up Top yet again talks about it with furrowed brow. Cyber-terrorism is ridiculous. It hasn't happened yet, and you can't convince me that there are any real signs of it happening in the near future.

The only thing that will happen is that vast amounts of money will be spent without result. Again.

Personally, I am getting tired of hearing about this "cyber-terrorism".

Me too.

You know it's nonsense. I know it's nonsense.

Yep, for now at least.

Please, let's just drop this. Let's not make it news when somebody Up Top yet again talks about it with furrowed brow.

This is where I differ. This is like pretending someone can't see you if you shut your eyes real hard. It might work in the mind of a 5 year old, but I think we need to be a little more intelligent than that.

Ignoring this will not make it go away. What we see as news doesn't matter to most of the people out there. Organizations like CNN drive what is considered "news" for most people. We need to keep watch on what is happening, so it doesn't catch us off guard when the latest anti-terrorist bill includes DMCA-II.

... Taiwan's President has accused China of threatening Taipei with "terrorist" tactics in a speech that will fuel Beijing's current fury:...

Yeah! How dare he call them terrorists!! Why that might "fuel their current fury", and they might do something nasty and violent! Doesn't he know that he should give them what they want, because of fear of their violent threats???

You may be reading the above line with disbelief. "Elections? What's he talking about? It's a Communist country!"

I didn't say they were proper, democratic elections with a broad voting franchise, I just said they were elections.

The 16th Communist Party Congress will convene in Beijing in October 2002. At this time, Communist Party Chairman, Central Military Commision Chairman, President, and Grand Pooh-Bah Jiang Zemin is supposed to step down from one or more of his 3 official posts, and appoint someone else (most likely Hu Jintao, also known as "Jintao Who?") to take his place. Or not. Vice-president and all-around nice guy Zhu Rongji will probably also step down. Li Peng (most famous as the fall guy for Tiananmen in '89. Second best known for a level of mental acuity which leaves visitors describing George W. Bush as comparatively bright and engaged) may or may not retire from his largely ceremonial posts.

In the mean time, everyone who has something to gain from old people being retired and their seats opening up is hustling for an edge. This means weird speeches, leaked documents, and all the usual bizarre intrigues which come with elections in more civilized places. To make things more fun, actual information about what's happening is on a need to know basis. None of./'s readers are anywhere near the Zhongnanhai leadership compound. As such, anything they say (including this article) should be treated with the greatest of possible skepticism.

If you've read this far, you may be asking "That's just great, but what does this have to do with Taiwan and asymetric warfare?". Unsurprisingly, Taiwan is one of these issues which conservatives and hard-line nationalists love (they can write papers on new ways to intimidate Taiwan and demonstrate their conservative credibility), as well as reformers and other compartive liberals (they can agree with these proposals so they don't appear to be soft on the Taiwan Question).

In summary, this is old hat. It's one of these things that gets dragged out year after year (like prayer in schools in the US) where there's lots of talk and no action.

If you want a bunch of fun reading on this, here's a web page which popped up. No attributions, but lots of interesting background articles on the players:

If the U.S. gets tied up in a ground war in the Middle East, China's going to be real tempted...."

Yes, those War Rabbid Communists are going to finally have the opportunity to unleash their unkept minions, hell-bent on destruction in their search to implement their Ultimate Secret Plan.

Those Filthy Communist Chinease have been waiting to assault *YOUR LOCAL MINI-MALL*, Apple Pie, Aunt Betty and Good old God Fearing Democratic America(TM).

RUN! HIDE! The COMMUNISTS ARE COMMMMIIIINNNGGG!!

*or* consider that AMERICANS are paranoid war-mongers - Now actually publicly debating when they will launch an unprovoked attack on another Nation. Propaganda about Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction (which USA officially participates-in, funds and implements) would you Americans not see this as a obvious shift from the present Join a Proxy War (Afghanistan/Vietnam), or maybe Fund Terrorists (C&SAmerica in 80s, Columbia Today), or other less obvious "Public Motivations"... now, now you Yanks are moving into the "Do What Your Told or ELSE - BECAUSE WE SAID SO!" style Warfare... a little off from your usual-run-of-the-mill American WarMongering.

what if GW is right? Don't argue that there is no proof...blaha blah blah. Hypothetically, what if he is, and Saddam could nuke people

What if he does have nukes - or chemical weapons? or supports "Terrorists"? These things are ALL DONE BY THE USA!

Having Nuclear Arms is UNIVERSALLY BAD - there is no "exception" from this idea, the USA is not somehow magicall trusted to only do good, and they have proven to not be trustworthy in the past.

What people inside the US (generally) fail to recognize is that it is a complete contradiction for you to be dictating ANYTHING to ANYONE in this regard. It is one thing for the product of the 9/11 event to begin an American-Lead World-Peace initiative (through a body such as the UN) or something, but this is not what has happened.

Instead, after the invasion of Afghanistan, you are now looking to broaden a War, of your creation, to ANOTHER nation - all the while trying to 'justify' and make 'reasonable' the act.

No war is acceptable - ever. It is one thing to defend yourself from attack (the purpose of every military) and another to ATTACK another nation - what you are proposing.

The world does not welcome Americans invading foreign nations... any more than Iraq->Kuwait, Germany->Poland, USSR->Afghanistan etc etc etc.

You cannot invade using "we need a regime change" as the reason, its fucking ridiculous -- and not alittle big scary.

We were at war with Japan. We asked them to stop. They told us they would fight to the very last man. What were we supposed to do? THEY ATTACKED US. You have some set of coward ass balls to even bring Japan into the conversation. Next time use Dreseden.

<i> I was in the City during both attacks on the WTC.

This was a criminal act. Not a sanctinoed act of war launched by a military - Iraq's or anyone else's.</i>

Perhaps there is little worry about 'cyberwarfare' but it is always important to understand that all governments utilize their intelligence services to conduct industrial espionage. In fact some services like France's publish that as a key objective, publically. The PRC is far more likely to be engaged in penetrating economic assets than military assets.

China will not risk nuclear war with the United States over Taiwan. While China does have nukes, their reliability is untested, their accuracy is questionable, and their arsenal is a small sliver of what the US has. Would they risk getting wiped off the face of the earth in a nuke exchange with the US, when they wouldn't have the capability to completely disable the US? No.

Would the US intervene if China invaded Taiwan? Absolutely. The intervention might not take the form of massive troop deployments, but you could certainly expect massive air and sea-based theater weapons such as cruise missiles, fuel-air bombs, and the like to be brought to bear on massed Chinese forces.

Whether China could defeat Taiwan is certainly open for debate, but the US would not sit idly by and let China launch an unprovoked attack without doing something about it. For the US not to do so would be tantamount to approving of the invasion, which is ludicrous to imagine.

I highly doubt that the US would risk using nukes against the Chinese short of them using nukes on taiwan, and even then there would probably be much hesitation. Even a tactical nuclear strike would be unwise; nuclear weapons have only been used twice offensively, and the debate on whether it was "right" or not still continues. Besides that, China's nuclear capability may be weak, but do you think the Russians would sit idly by, even if the fallout didn't drift into Russian territory?

However, it does seem unlikely that China would risk (conventional) war with the US over Taiwan; they may have over one billion people, but much of their military technology dates back to the fifties. In the case of invasion, the US would almost certainly come to Taiwan's aid, for better or for worse.

I agree that using nukes would be unwise, and I doubt that the US would ever have either cause or compunction to use them in defense of Taiwan. As you note, China's military infrastructure is in most aspects rather antiquated. Their unsophisticated C3I capabilities in particular would make them extremely vulnerable as they massed in the attack.

I'm not sure what you mean about the Russians sitting idly by (or not sitting idly by). Remember that their relationship with China over the years has been anything but smooth, and from a geopolitical point of view, they're natural competitors for the bulk of the Asian land mass. Are you implying that if China and the US engaged in a nuclear exchange, China would bring their own nukes into the fray?

However, it does seem unlikely that China would risk (conventional) war with the US over Taiwan; they may have over one billion people, but much of their military technology dates back to the fifties. In the case of invasion, the US would almost certainly come to Taiwan's aid, for better or for worse.

I'm sure there are other deals going on. Russia's willing to sell anything to make a buck. You might say that their technology is behind the times as well, but it's a funny thing. If you have the airpower, then there is a lot of things you can do with a billion people...

China can either be a friend to the US or an enemy. I believe that as it gains more and more economic and military clout over the years, the tensions between American superpower dominance and Chinese desire to flex their power will become more and more apparent.

American policymakers and pretty much everyone else in the realm of international affairs understands that these tensions will continue to surface. The real issue is how the US and China will handle those tensions.

If China were to hit Taiwain, it would not be in the same category as war in the Israeli-occupied areas or Russian adventures in Chechnya. Those issues are of interest to the US, but are not as pressing, because in neither case is the future security of East Asia being called into doubt.

American foreign policy is becoming more and more oriented around containment of China and protection of the Far East. A prosperous free market regional economy is extremely important to the US, and by allowing China to disrupt it at will, the US would be opening the door to further disruptions later.

The domestic faction in the US that you speak of would likely be opposed to a huge, manpower-intensive war over Taiwan, but it would be extremely difficult for anyone to argue that China's annexation of Taiwan would be anything but an invasion of a neighboring country.

The American public has been fed a diet of "Rising China" stories over the past few years by the media, and my guess is they would be strongly in favor of attacking Chinese forces taking part in any such invasion.

I would submit that Taiwan itself is more of a deterrent than the US for preventing any hostility between China and Taiwan... the reason is simple: Taiwan is now China's third largest investor, next to the US and Japan -- even despite limits on investment activity set by the Taiwanese government. Other than the most advanced technology, much of Taiwan's high-tech manufacturing, such as chip fabs, has been farmed out to factories in Guangdong and Fujian provinces, as well as many other parts of China. The relationship is a lot like say, US and Mexico for instance.

Taiwan pumps a LOT into the Chinese economy, and the Chinese know it. The leaders of China may be aggressive, because face is everything, and they want to maintain a strong posture to the world. Nevertheless, they are not irrational or suicidal. A trade embargo between Taiwan and China would be plenty damaging enough, even without US military intervention (which is also a guarantee -- Taiwan and the US are still subject to terms of their mutual defense treaty, signed as part of US switching diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1979.)

I was under the impression that China's capabilities were far more limited then you state, which they are but not nearly as much as I thought... Check out this BBC page [bbc.co.uk] for more info.

As for China being a "Super Power", it's been my understanding that the USA is the world's last Super Power!? I'm not certain why this is as China has shear numbers behind it (not to mention nukes and some form of space program, as does the EU), but most live in 3rd world conditions, so I guess that knocks them down a peg... or maybe that's just good ole American arrogance? (which I can get away with saying, as I am myself an gringo =)

So who are the world's Super Powers? A quick Google Search [google.com] did me no good, so what are the requirements and the current list? Anyone?

Oh yeah? I read in the Weekly World News (the definitive news source) that if the Chinese government got all X billion Chinese to jump up and down at once, they could throw the Earth off its axis! Try that on for size!:D

So who are the world's Super Powers? A quick Google Search [google.com] did me no good, so what are the requirements and the current list? Anyone?

Try 'definition superpower' in google, and you'll get a couple of interesting and subjective suggestions, the most logical (from a historical perspective) of which seem to suggest that you may only have one superpower at a time, with zero, one, or more major competitors, that may or may not assume the crown over time.

http://www.dictionary.com on the other hand gives us

1)A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear power that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc.

and;

2)a state powerful enough to influence events throughout the world.

Neither of these seem to restrict membership of the club to 1 member, and you could certainly make a case for China to qualify under either definition, although I think it's fair to say that the US is at the top of the superpower tree by any reasonable assessment.

Huh... I'd have to subscribe to the #2 in the list, though I'd submit that in order to be able to be powerful enough to influence events throughout the world you would need to be a nuclear state with more then a limited regional range as a pre-req (suggesting some sort of space program as a R&D bed). The idea that there is only one super power at any one time is bullshit... look at the cold war. USA -vs- Russia. The US influenced the western world and Russia influenced Asia almost entirely (not to mention eastern Europe). Vietnam being a prime example of USA -vs- Russia.

My own personal opinion is that the US is at the top of world super powers, with China in a distant second (thanks to it being basicially a 3rd world country with some 1st world technology) and the EU in a far distant third (simply due to their many varied opinions thanks to the fact that they are in fact different countries). Britain of course is generally well-respected world wide, but is below the super power radar if you ask me.

Taiwan is a major source of investment capital for China, and only seems likely to increase in importance as one in the future. Taiwan recently eliminated an official requirement that investment in the mainland had to be chunneled through third parties [216.239.35.100], and removed its cap on mainland investment of $50 million last year.

Considering that the single largest threat to the CCP is probably the economic instability and mass urban unemployment that comes with state-owned enterprise reform, market liberalization and WTO accession, it seems exceedingly unlikely that the CCP will take any steps whose immediate consequence will inevitably be a sharp reduction in foreign capital inflows -- inflows the top leadership (or at least Zhu Rongji) seems to recognize is absolutely vital to maintain rapid growth in the country and prevent the financial sector from choking under the weight of insolvency [tibet.ca].

THAT being said, if Taiwan actually makes a move towards independence, as seems increasingly likely, it's anyone's guess what might happen, since much of the political legitimacy of the CCP also seems based on catering to Chinese nationalism. Could they afford not to react?

All this being said, having actually read "Unrestricted Warfare" (in English), I think the threat of China as a digital renegade is completely overblown, if it is politically convenient for those with other reasons to dislike/distrust the country. There is nothing in the report that any other military institution isn't already considering. And lest we forget, the US itself targeted civilian communications infrastructure in Serbia during the Kosovo War. In any event -- its likely that air superiority will continue to be the decisive factor in contemporary military conflict -- and China doesn't have remarkably good aerospace airforce and knows it.

In any event -- its likely that air superiority will continue to be the decisive factor in contemporary military conflict -- and China doesn't have remarkably good aerospace airforce and knows it.

"Air superioruty"'s overblown value is a doctrine originated by Germans (in their pathetic attempts to attack Britain from the air alone) and picked up by US as a way to sell themselves an idea of having a war with extremely low casualties on their side. It's bullshit. Any airplane outside of the area of a battle on the ground or sea is nothing but a very large house fly -- an annoying target. The damage that it can cause to anything military is negligible, the possibilities to turn it away by all kinds of attacks, even without actually destroying, are endless, and the best it can do is to bomb cities full of civilians to at best demoralize and usually merely annoy the population.

In a battle on the ground or sea the air force can do a lot of assistance and may even determine the outcome of the battle, but don't kid yourselves -- there must be a battle there in the first place, and a lot of people will have to die there, with or without airplanes flying over them.

War sucks, and if you go there, you are most likely to die. No doctrine changes that.

I didn't mean to imply that air superiority alone guaranteed victory, so your points are well taken....

But I think you're being overly pessimistic otherwise. Command of the air in Kosovo may not have led directly to the toppling of Milosevic, but let's remember that it was used from 16,000+ feet (out of the range of Serbian surface-to-air missiles), largely out of the understandable American desire to avoid unnecessary casualties.

I think a lot of the pessimism over the value of air superiority otherwise is a hangover from Vietnam, where major air offensives are generally believed to have been ineffective. What people tend to forget is that the Vietcong had an incredibly effective sigint network, and - from evesdropping on unsecured American communications, and particularly the ground- communications of air Force maintenance personel - often had quite advance warning on the location and timing of air assaults.

When the US got its act together and began to secure its communications, the effectiveness of bombing in Vietnam (and Cambodia) increased immesurably.

But I think you're being overly pessimistic otherwise. Command of the air in Kosovo may not have led directly to the toppling of Milosevic, but let's remember that it was used from 16,000+ feet (out of the range of Serbian surface-to-air missiles), largely out of the understandable American desire to avoid unnecessary casualties.

That was a typical use of military force in the time of peace, when civilians' life is valuable -- it works until a real war starts. And, of course, it only supported Milosevich by providing a convenient foreign enemy, ultimately delaying his removal from power by then disorganized opposition, that couldn't use situation either way at the moment. Same with some later events and another weak leader that used foreign "air attacks" against civilians in his country as a crutch for his political career. He is doing fine so far.

I think a lot of the pessimism over the value of air superiority otherwise is a hangover from Vietnam, where major air offensives are generally believed to have been ineffective. What people tend to forget is that the Vietcong had an incredibly effective sigint network, and - from evesdropping on unsecured American communications, and particularly the ground- communications of air Force maintenance personel - often had quite advance warning on the location and timing of air assaults.

When the US got its act together and began to secure its communications, the effectiveness of bombing in Vietnam (and Cambodia) increased immesurably.

Vietnam was a special case in a lot of areas, so I wouldn't read much into that.

Early detection of airplanes flying from remote locations however doesn't depend on interception of communications now -- radars and even satellites do it much better. What is more important, when you are not completely out of resources, it simply doesn't matter much -- just defend what is worth being defended, and accept minor losses caused by whatever will slip through those defenses, or in the areas that are defended poorly. When you are at war you can't guard every building and civilian, but if losses from bombing are higher than, say, potential losses from enemy saboteurs (that are nearly impossible to prevent completely but never can be too high either), enemy will prefer bombing, and you will prefer tying up and wasting enemy's resources in actual battles rather than wasting yours ones on defending large areas that a bomber can reach.

He is not a child molester. It depends on the age on consent of the country the act took place in. For instance, the age of consent here in the UK is 16, which qould make his act perfectly fine. In some 'civilised' countries it's as low as 14.

I have no idea what the age of consent is in China, but don't just jump to conclusions because of your own local laws and moral climate.